I think our new Guest has watched one too many episodes of “NUMB3RS”.
At the risk of developing a tangent better suited for Cafe Society (and don’t you hate it when a good pit thread devolves into a Cafe Society discussion?), I have to comment on this. I had such hopes for that show, but never really had the opportunity to watch it much until recently. I have to say, ugh. How disappointing. Talk about introducing theoretical concepts for the sole purpose of confusing simple issues.
My favorite was in an episode shown within the last few weeks. They’re tracking some guy in the back woods, and know several paths he takes. The mathemetician suggests that by using bubble theory, they can figure out something about his habits or what not.
So they show this drawing that the guy has come up with, which basically says that he used “bubble theory” (with obligatory description of this theory) to figure out that the point in the middle of three places he’s been observed is where they might find him. :smack:
This also happens to be the location of the guy’s house! :smack:
Well actually I agree with your position–so my bias is your bias.
I apologize if you feel I singled you out–that was not my intent. I have actually always enjoyed your posts here. You will see I never made any comment about you calling him a rascist, etc. But your comment was rude to another group of people and it seemed odd to me to hurl those kinds of comments when you are calling somone out as being hurtful. Calling him out with the language he was using seems okay to me–calling him out while insulting another group seems wrong–even in the pit. Just my take–take it with a grain of salt okay.
In my opinion the ‘point’ of this debate would have been better served in something like GD or another forum where an actual discussion would have been had rather than degrading into name calling. So perhaps you are correct about this being the pit and all. Still seems you are better served not lowering yourself to that level.
well I am out of here–off to the baseball game with my daughter.
::channling Condi Rice::
no one could have possibly predicted that the fugitive would keep in contact w/his family!::/ccr::
(you forgot to mention that the guys spotted evidence of a bullet hitting the roof of the porch that no one else had spotted during the initial investigation - it was, after all, only visible to the naked eye at 40 feet.
You slandered me and refused to apologize, and then twisted about like a corkscrew when called on it. I said it was bullshit, and that you are a fucking liar. No Tourette’s needed. I knows shit when I smells it, sister woman.
I wish we could stop arguing over who said what and just let the thread die already.
Sheesh.
I’ve always found posting to a thread to be a great way of letting it die.
Calling you names? In the Pit?
I am truly shocked.
You are right. In trying to insult my opponents, I really insulted a bunch of people who don’t deserve it.
So pretend I said “stupid trolley” instead. Deal? 
No worries, he hasn’t, that’s just the easy Godwin strawman.
No deal. Calling people a troll is forbidden. Read the forum rules, and don’t do this again.
I don’t think she did it here. I think she was backing away (but not really) from implying her opponents (me included, I suspect) were mentally retarded (or, that there was anything wrong with retardation) by providing a synonym for the “short bus” terminology someone objected to.
Please reconsider this warning–she is/did not call anyone a troll–she is saying substitute “stupid trolley” for “short bus”.
How about offering tea with a roll?
Am I being whooshed? Because this would be a funny joke, if it’s intended as such. But I don’t think it is.
My bad, I got a reported post on the topic and misread “trolley” for “trollery”.
Have some earl grey and a spiral pecan pastry and have a nice discussion about Neil Gaiman’s “Smoke and Mirrors,” particularly the story between “The Price” and “Don’t Ask Jack.”
Fol rol de ol rol.
I’m just glad I hadn’t said anything about goats or bridges in that “stupid tr_lley” post. 'Cause that might have gotten me banned, instead of just warned.
Gimme one of those rolls, Askia.
takes a big hungry bite
Could I have the pony instead? I have a shovel!
I hope before this thread dies it’s long overdue death we do get to the details of Huerta88’s uncritical regurgitation of defense sound/text bites, for instance,
I’m still waiting for a cite that actually says the “20 men raped me” line was spoken by the accuser. The cite given does not.
I’m equally disturbed by the flat out acceptance of the “he never had a mustache” factoid.
(To make my point I must broaden the question from mustaches to facial hair.)
Hearing this my first question is not did the accused have a mustache, but what does the accuser mean when they describe someone as having one.
This man has a beard (and mustache), does this one?
Is that heavy five o’clock shadow or a Miami Vice/George Michael “designer stubble” beard (and mustache)?
The truth of her statement is not disproved by the friends of the accused, it’s disproved if the accuser’s description (as fully explained) does not match the facts.
If I describe someone as “tall” wouldn’t you need to know what “tall” means to me?
If your 6’, 5’6" is short, if your 5’, 5’6" is tall.
CMC fnord!
I must’ve missed the many posts with the flavour of “I know all about what I’m talking about, so why don’t you come back when you’ve got a clue, honey?”, then.
Be it noted that I didn’t pay any attention to your doctorate until after
[ol]
[li]you’d consigned me to the short bus, and[/li][li]you’d demonstrated an apparently weak grasp of mathematics, unfitting your degree and your professional standing, and[/li][li]Hi, Opal![/li][/ol]
So it looks like I/ get to play the “Poor little me didn’t insult no-one 'til I’d been insulted first, no me didn’t” card, huh? 
Incidentally, I can’t be arsed to dig back all the way to yesterday for the post in question, but the guy (John Mace?) who was arguing that if there are ten times as many white women as black in the town, a randomly-selected white woman is more likely to be a rape liar than a randomly-selected black woman. If the incidence of lying is the same per head whether white or black (given in the hypothetical), then the fact that there are ten times as many white rape-cryers in town as black is exactly offset by the fact that there are ten times as many white women as black. I hope we don’t need a detailed breakdown of this highly obvious fact. (OTOH, a randomly-selected rape liar is ten times as likely to be white as black - but that’s another pail of pilchards.)